Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse

Effect of two different surgical modalities for pelvic organ prolapse on postoperative wound infection in patients: A meta-analysis

Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) is widely applied to the treatment of female pelvis organ prolapsed. Contradictory findings have already been reported in the comparison of sacrocolpopexy (SC) with SSLF. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of SC versus SSLF in treating pelvis organ prolapsed after operation. We conducted a meta-analysis of both operative approaches, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. In this research, 822 articles were chosen from three databases, 201 were copied, and 10 were included. Among them, 7248 cases were operated on the prolapsed pelvis. It was found that SSLF surgery could significantly decrease the rate of postoperative wound infection after operation (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.82; p = 0.001). No statistical significance was found among the SSLF and the SC surgery for the post-operation haemorrhage of the patient (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.23-2.83; p = 0.75). No statistical significance was found among the SSLF and the SC surgery for the postoperative period of the patient's operation (mean difference, -15.46; 95% CI, -52.87 to 21.94; p = 0.42). Applying SSLF surgery to treat pelvic prolapse in women may benefit from a reduction in the number of post-operative wound infections. However, SSLF had no statistical significance with respect to the amount of haemorrhage after operation or operation time.

A systematic review of the surgical management of apical pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

This systematic review (PROSPERO:CRD42022275789) is aimed at comparing qualitatively the success, recurrence, and complication rates of sacrocolpopexy with concomitant hysterectomy, hysteropexy, sacrospinous fixation (SSF) with and without vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and uterosacral fixation (USF) with and without VH.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies published from 2011, on women with apical pelvic organ prolapse requiring surgical interventions. Risk of bias was assessed via the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tool. The primary outcomes are the success and recurrence rate of each technique, for ≥12 months' follow-up. Findings were summarised qualitatively.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included. Overall significant findings for a high success and low recurrence rate are summarised as: minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) is superior to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC); sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) is superior to USF + VH, which is superior to uterosacral hysteropexy and mesh hysteropexy (MHP). Significant findings related to complications include: MISC recorded a lower overall complication rate than ASC except in mesh exposure; USF + VH tends to perform better than SSHP and SSF, with SSHP performing better than MHP in faecal incontinence and overactive bladder rates.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to conclude that hysterectomy is superior to uterine-sparing approaches. MISC should be considered over ASC given similar efficacy and reduced complications. Superiority of MHP is unproven against native tissue hysteropexy. Further studies under standardised settings are required for direct comparisons between the surgical management methods.

Robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy vs robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in women with primary advanced apical prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the anatomic and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy (RASH) against robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) for the treatment of primary advanced apical prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all robot-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgeries for primary advanced apical prolapse (stage ≥II) between January 2011 and May 2021 at an academic tertiary hospital. Surgical outcomes and pelvic organ function were evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative (POP-Q) stage and validated questionnaires (POPDI-6) during preoperative and postoperative 12-month follow-up evaluations. All data were obtained from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 2368 women underwent surgery for apical prolapse repair, and 18 women underwent either RASH (n = 11) or RASC (n = 7). Compared to the RASC group, the RASH group was significantly younger, premenopausal, and less parous. Preoperative prolapse stage, operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospitalization length was comparable between the groups. No intraoperative complications were observed. All women had a median follow-up duration of 24 months (range: 12-108 months). During the 12-month follow-up period, women in the RASH group reported higher satisfaction with the surgery than those in the RASC group (100% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.137). The mesh exposure rate was significantly higher in the RASC group (3/7, 42.9%) than in the RASH group (0/11, 0%) ( p = 0.043), which was found at 12 to 36 months postoperatively and was successfully managed with vaginal estrogen cream. In the RASH group, one woman required reoperation with anterior colporrhaphy for recurrent anterior prolapse at 60 months postoperatively. The apical success rate was 100% at one year postoperatively, without apical recurrence in either group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

RASH represents an effective and feasible option for the surgical treatment of advanced primary apical prolapse in women who desire uterine preservation and have a significantly lower risk of mesh erosion than RASC.

Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review objective and subjective success and complications of apical suspensions for symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE (2002-2019) were searched using multiple terms for apical POP surgeries, including comparative studies in French and English.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

From 2,665 records, we included randomized controlled trials and comparative studies of interventions with or without hysterectomy, including abdominal apical reconstruction through open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches and vaginal apical reconstructions. Repairs using transvaginal mesh, off-the-market products, procedures without apical suspension, and follow-up less than 6 months were excluded.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Relative risk (RR) was used to estimate the effect of surgical procedure on each outcome. For each outcome and comparison, a meta-analysis was conducted to pool the RRs when possible. Meta-regression and bias tests were performed when appropriate. The GRADE (Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for quality rating and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting were used. Sixty-two articles were included in the review (N=22,792) and 50 studies in the meta-analyses. There was heterogeneity in study quality, techniques used, and outcomes reported. Median follow-up was 1-5 years. Vaginal suspensions showed higher risk of overall and apical anatomic recurrence compared with sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.74 and RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.33-5.50) (moderate), whereas minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy showed less overall and posterior anatomic recurrence compared with open sacrocolpopexy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75 and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80, respectively) (low). Different vaginal approaches, and hysterectomy and suspension compared with hysteropexy had similar anatomic success. Subjective POP recurrence, reintervention for POP recurrence and complications were similar between most procedures.

CONCLUSION

Despite variations in anatomic outcomes, subjective outcomes and complications were similar for apical POP procedures at 1-5 years. Standardization of outcome reporting and comparative studies with longer follow-up are urgently needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019133869.

Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis

Introduction and hypothesis

Sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) have been used for the restoration of apical support. Studies comparing sacrocolpopexy and SSLF have reported conflicting results. We aim to assess the current evidence regarding efficiency and the complications of sacrocolpopexy compared with SSLF.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review meta-analysis to assess the two surgical approaches.

Results

5Five randomized controlled trials, 8 retrospective studies, and 2 prospective studies including 4,120 cases were identified. Compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), SSLF was associated with a lower success rate (88.32% and 91.45%; OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.29–0.95; p = 0.03), higher recurrence (11.58% and 8.32%; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.04–3.46; p = 0.04), and dyspareunia rate (14.36% and 4.67%; OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.28–7.50; p = 0.01). Patients in this group may benefit from shorter operative time (weighted mean difference −25.08 min; 95% CI −42.29 to −7.88; p = 0.004), lower hemorrhage rate (0.85% and 2.58%; OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25–0.85; p = 0.009), wound infection rate (3.30% and 5.76%; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39–0.77; p = 0.0005), and fewer gastrointestinal complications (1.33% and 6.19%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15–0.76; p = 0.009).

Conclusion

Both sacrocolpopexy and SSLF offer an efficient alternative to the restoration of apical support. When anatomical durability and sexual function is a priority, ASC may be the preferred option. When considering factors of mesh erosion, operative time, gastrointestinal complications, hemorrhage, and wound infections, SSLF may be the better option.

Abdominal and vaginal pelvic support with concomitant hysterectomy for uterovaginal pelvic prolapse: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

While approximately 225,000 pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgeries are performed annually in the US, there is no consensus on the optimal route for pelvic support for the initial treatment of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). Our objective is to compare the outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) to vaginal pelvic support (VPS) with either uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) or sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) in combination with hysterectomy for treating apical prolapse.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed through March 2021. Studies comparing ASC with VPS for treatment of UVP were included in the review. The primary outcome was the rate of overall anatomic prolapse failure per studies' definition. Secondary outcomes included evaluating isolated recurrent vaginal wall prolapse, postoperative POP-Q points, total vaginal length (TVL), and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) scores. Random effect analyses were generated utilizing R 4.0.2.

RESULTS

Out of 4225 total studies, 4 met our inclusion criteria, including 226 patients in the ASC group and 199 patients in the VPS group. ASC was not found to be associated with a higher rate of vaginal wall prolapse recurrence (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.2-2.4; P = 0.33). There was no significant difference between groups for anterior or apical vaginal wall prolapse recurrence (P = 0.58 and P = 0.97, respectively). ASC was associated with significantly longer TVL (mean difference [MD]: 1.01; 95% CI = 0.33-1.70; P = 0.02) and better POP-Q Ba scores [MD = -0.23; 95% CI = -0.37; -0.10; P = 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

ASC and vaginal pelvic support (either USLS or SSF) have comparable anatomical outcomes. However, weak evidence of a difference in TVL and Ba was found. The strength of the evidence in this study is based on the small number of observational studies. A large, randomized trial is highly warranted.

Directive clinique no 413 : Traitement chirurgical du prolapsus génital apical chez les femmes

OBJECTIF

Comparer les taux de réussite et de complications des interventions de suspension apicale pour le traitement du prolapsus symptomatique de l'utérus ou du dôme vaginal.

POPULATION CIBLE

Les femmes présentant un prolapsus symptomatique de l'utérus ou du dôme vaginal qui souhaitent obtenir un traitement chirurgical.

OPTIONS

Les interventions abordées sont les méthodes reconstructives apicales par voie abdominale (colposacropexie, hystérosacropexie ou hystéropexie avec suspension aux ligaments utéro-sacrés) par chirurgie ouverte, laparoscopique ou robotisée; les méthodes reconstructives apicales par voie vaginale (suspension du dôme vaginal ou hystéropexie, sacrospinofixation, suspension aux ligaments utéro-sacrés, suspension au muscle ilio-coccygien, culdoplastie de McCall ou amputation du col [technique de Manchester]); et les interventions vaginales oblitérantes (avec ou sans utérus in situ). Les interventions individuelles ou les grandes catégories d'interventions ont été comparées : (1) reconstruction par voie vaginale versus abdominale, (2) interventions reconstructives par voie abdominale, (3) interventions reconstructives par voie vaginale, (4) reconstruction par hystérectomie avec suspension par comparaison à la reconstruction par hystéropexie et (5) options reconstructives versus oblitérantes. RéSULTATS: Le comité d'urogynécologie a sélectionné les résultats cliniques suivants : échec objectif (obtenu par des systèmes validés de quantification du prolapsus génital et défini comme un échec global objectif et un taux d'échec par compartiment); échec subjectif (réapparition de la sensation de protubérance déterminée subjectivement, avec ou sans l'utilisation d'un questionnaire validé); réopération pour un prolapsus génital récidivé; complications postopératoires de troubles mictionnels (incontinence urinaire d'effort de novo ou postopératoire; réopération d'une incontinence urinaire d'effort de novo, persistante ou récidivée; incontinence urinaire par urgenturie; et dysfonction mictionnelle); lésion des voies urinaires détectée en périopératoire (vessie ou uretère); autres complications (exposition prothétique, définie comme un treillis visible et exposé dans le vagin et une douleur pelvienne non sexuelle); et fonction sexuelle (dyspareunie de novo et score de la fonction sexuelle d'après un questionnaire validé). BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: Cette directive clinique sera bénéfique pour les patientes qui souhaitent obtenir une correction chirurgicale du prolapsus génital apical en améliorant les conseils sur les options de traitement chirurgical et les résultats cliniques possibles. La directive sera également utile pour les fournisseurs de soins chirurgicaux en améliorant leurs connaissances sur diverses méthodes chirurgicales. Les données présentées pourraient servir à élaborer des cadres et des outils pour la prise de décision partagée. DONNéES PROBANTES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) et Embase pour des articles publiés entre 2002 et 2019. Les termes de recherche étaient nombreux et portaient sur les interventions de correction du prolapsus génital apical, les voies d'abord et les complications. Nous avons exclu les reconstructions par treillis transvaginal et les études comparant les interventions sans suspension apicale. Nous avons inclus des essais cliniques randomisés et des études comparatives prospectives ou rétrospectives. Nous avons limité nos recherches aux articles publiés en anglais ou en français dont le texte intégral était accessible. Une revue systématique des articles avec méta-analyse a ensuite été effectuée. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteures ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la force des recommandations en utilisant lecadre méthodologique d'évaluation, de développement et d'évaluation (GRADE). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (tableau A1 pour les définitions et tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et faibles).

PROFESSIONNELS CIBLES

Gynécologues, urologues, urogynécologues et autres fournisseurs de soins de santé qui évaluent, conseillent et soignent des femmes ayant un prolapsus génital. DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES: Toutes les déclarations font référence à la correction du prolapsus génital apical à court et à moyen terme (jusqu'à 5 ans), sauf indication contraire. RECOMMANDATIONS.

Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

OBJECTIVE

To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

TARGET POPULATION

Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction.

OPTIONS

Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options.

OUTCOMES

The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire).

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.

EVIDENCE

We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Comparison of patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation, laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy and abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy in terms of postoperative quality of life and sexual function

AIM

To investigate whether there is a significant difference among the patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation (VH + SSLF), laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (LH + SCP) and abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (AH + SCP) in terms of sexual function and quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Sixty-five patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation (VH + SSLF), laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (LH + SCP) or abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (AH + SCP) participated in the study. The Quality of Life Scale and Sexual Function Scale Index (PISQ-12) were used to see whether there is a significant difference among the three groups (VH + SSLF, LH + SCP, AH + SCP) at least 1 year after surgery. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) Scale consisting of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6), Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6), and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) was used to evaluate the functional outcomes.

RESULTS

The participants had a mean age of 60 ± 8.79 years. The mean PFDI-20 score in the VH + SSLF groups is higher than that in the AH + SCP group (p = 0.047). There is no significant difference among three VH + SSLF, LH + SCP and AH + SCP groups regarding scores of POPDI-6, UDI-6, CRADI-8, and PISQ-12.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, it was concluded that AH + SCP group had a higher quality of life than the VH + SSLF group did while the sexual function was not affected significantly by the vaginal or abdominal surgical procedures. The pelvic surgeon should skillfully choose different prolapse surgical techniques to tailor the surgical treatment to the patient's needs.

Medium-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study

AIM

To compare 2-year outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) either with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (PP+ PG) mesh.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective audit on 105 consecutive patients undergoing LSCP a with PVDF-mesh (DynaMesh, FEG Textiltechniken), matched by prolapse stage and cervicopexy or vault suspension to 105 controls undergoing LSCP with a hybrid PP + PG-mesh (Ultrapro, Ethicon). Patients are part of an ongoing prospective study. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGIC), the coprimary variable was failure rate at the vault (≤1 cm). Other outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications within 3 months categorized by the Clavien-Dindo classification, reinterventions, graft-related complications (GRCs) and functional outcomes. All assessments were performed by an independent assessor. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) number and percent as appropriate, the Mann-Whitney U, χ² , or Fisher exact were used for comparison.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction in the PVDF group, as measured with the PGIC, was high (90.9% PGIC, ≥4) as well as was the anatomical success (97.3%) at a follow-up of 26 months. These outcomes were comparable to those of PP + PG-patients (84.8% PGIC, ≥4; 94.9% anatomical success). There were five patients (2.4%) with Dindo-III or higher complications and three patients had GRCs (1.5%), without differences between mesh type. Level-II posterior defects (Bp ≥ -1) were less likely in PVDF patients (34.1% vs 50% for PP + PG-patients; P = .003). Women in the PVDF group also were less bothered by prolapse (7.5% vs 26.4%; P = .001), yet they complained more of constipation (15.0% vs 9.0%; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in patient satisfaction and anatomical outcomes after LSCP either with PVDF or PP + PG mesh.

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy With a Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

Transvaginal mesh (TVM) results in a greater anatomic cure but more complications. We aimed to compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) plus colporrhaphy with the small intestine submucosa (SIS) graft versus TVM for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

Patients with advanced POP who underwent LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft or TVM at a center between September 2015 and November 2016 were studied. Anatomical outcomes were evaluated using POP quantification. Functional outcomes related to POP and sexual life were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Data regarding surgical procedures and patient demographic variables were recorded. Chi-square and Student t -tests were used for 2 independent samples.

Results

A total of 76 patients were enrolled in this study with 26 patients in the LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft group (group A) and 50 patients with TVM group (group B). All patients in both groups demonstrated significant improvement in anatomical outcomes (P<0.05) after surgery. PFDI-20 scores were significantly improved 12 months after operation in both groups (P<0.001). PISQ-12 scores were significantly improved in patients after surgery, especially patients in group A (P<0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in both groups as follows: 8 patients (30.7%) in group A and 5 patients (10%) in group B.

Conclusions

Even though both surgeries showed excellent results for subjective and objective outcomes, the use of an SIS graft might increase the exposure of polypropylene mesh. We do not recommend LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft for advanced multiple-compartments prolapse.

Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature

Introduction and hypothesis

The use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic floor surgery has been subject to debate internationally. Although mesh erosion appears to be less associated with an abdominal approach, the long-term outcome has not been studied intensively. This study was set up to determine the long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Methods

A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. All consecutive female patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolporectopexy in 2011 and 2012 were included. Primary outcome was mesh erosion. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation (6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years) with a clinical examination and questionnaire regarding pelvic floor symptoms was performed. Mesh-related complications were assessed using a transparent vaginal speculum, proctoscopy, and digital vaginal and rectal examination. Kaplan–Meier estimates were calculated for mesh erosion. A review of the literature on mesh exposure after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was performed (≥12 months’ follow-up).

Results

Ninety-six of the 130 patients included (73.8%) were clinically examined. Median follow-up time was 48.1 months (range 36.0–62.1). Three mesh erosions were diagnosed (3.1%; Kaplan–Meier 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0–11.0): one bladder erosion for which mesh resection and an omental patch interposition were performed, and two asymptomatic vaginal erosions (at 42.7 and 42.3 months) treated with estrogen cream in one. Additionally, 22 patients responded solely by questionnaire and/or telephone; none reported mesh-related complaints. The literature, mostly based on retrospective studies, described a median mesh erosion rate of 1.9% (range 0–13.3%).

Conclusions

The long-term rate of mesh erosion following an abdominally placed synthetic graft is low.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-019-03990-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

[Long-term Outcome after Prolapse Surgery in a General Gynecological Teaching Hospital]

Zusammenfassung. Untersucht wurden objektive und subjektive Langzeitergebnisse vaginaler und laparoskopischer Prolapsoperationen in einem allgemeinen gynäkologischen Lehrkrankenhaus. Es handelt sich um eine retrospektive Studie mit 269 Frauen. Das subjektive Ergebnis wurde anhand des P-QOL-Fragebogens und Befragungen beurteilt, die objektiven Ergebnisdaten wurden prä- und postoperativ nach drei bis neun Monaten beurteilt. Die Krankengeschichte wurde bezüglich Anamnese sowie intra- und postoperativen Komplikationen analysiert. Wir führten 87 laparoskopische Sakrokolpopexien, 100 Kolpofixationen nach Richter, 164 anteriore oder/und posteriore vaginale Plastiken, oft in Kombination mit anderen Eingriffen, sowie weitere Eingriffe durch. 80 % (185/206) der behandelten Frauen waren mit dem postoperativen Ergebnis zufrieden. Kenntnisse der Anamnese und der Symptome der Patientin sind sehr wichtig, um die Frauen über chirurgische Optionen und Erwartungen hinsichtlich des objektiven postoperativen Ergebnisses orientieren zu können.

Transvaginal Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation after Second Recurrence of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Efficacy and Impact on Quality of Life and Sexuality

Objective

Our aim was to study the efficacy of transvaginal bilateral sacrospinous fixation (TBSF) and its impact on quality of life (QoL) and sexual functions in women affected by second recurrences of vaginal vault prolapse (VVP).

Materials and Methods

We performed a prospective observational study on 20 sexually active patients affected by second recurrence of VVP, previously treated with monolateral sacrospinous fixation. TBSF was performed in all the patients. They had been evaluated before the surgery and at 12-month follow-up through pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12).

Results

At 12-month follow-up, 18 out of 20 (90%) patients were cured of their recurrent VVP. No major intra- and postoperative complications occurred. We found a significant improvement in 4/5 POP-Q landmarks (excluding total vaginal length), SF-36, and PISQ-12 scores.

Conclusion

According to our data analysis, TBSF appears to be safe, effective, and able to improve both QoL and sexual functions in patients affected by second recurrence of VVP after previous monolateral sacrospinous fixation.